Robert Sparks wrote:
> Vijay -
>
> What piece of text are you looking at that is leading
> you to believe that the remote target URI would be placed
> in the route set? There shouldn't be _any_ text that could be
> interpreted that way. The remote target URI and the route set are
> disjoint concepts.
Right; no misunderstandings there.
> The first element of the route set not being a loose router
> only affects how the Route header field of a message is
> constructed, not what is in the route set. Yes - if that
> first element doesn't contain ;lr, the Remote target URI is going
> to be placed in the Route header field. But that is not the same
> thing as placing it in the route set.
It boils down to a objective interpretation. The current wordings of
the specification state that the Route set is constructed from the
R-R headers only; older versions of the specification (up until -05bis,
anyway) explicitly made the Contact (the remote target URI) part of the
Route set (I know the reasons why...)
For a UAC whose next hop is not a -09bis proxy, effectively the remote
target URI is part of the Route headers (although not part of the
Route set, as defined now).
So yes, you are correct -- in respect to Attila's question on if the
remote target URI is added to the Route "set", the answer is no. But
it is added to the Route headers, and Route headers <> Route set (in
-09bis).
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
